Does being the worst-ever-loser in a Presidential election give you a free spot in the Post for life? McGovern adds nothing new here, not a thing, to the tired and pathetic “impeachment” plaint. Is it the fact that he was involved, however, marginally, in the almost-impeachment adventures of Richard Nixon, that renders him qualified for free column inches for a lackluster political rant?

If that’s the standard, I suppose we can expect something similar from Monica Lewinsky soon.

8 Responses to “Tipping the scales”

From a practical standpoint, I don’t understand why McGovern and Cindy Sheehan, et al, are advocating impeachment. Bush has a year left in office. Even if all the Democrats had time to attempt impeachment and conviction during the middle of election season, they could only hope to shorten Bush’s presidency by a few months. That seems like a rather hollow victory at best.

Well, I’ll be durned… and here I thought, historically speaking, he’s just kinda irrelevant.
Like Dewey, but with shoddier taste in clothes.

But then again, you never know.
McGovern does have a proven track record of being well ahead of the curve, doesn’t he?
And I reckon one curve is as good as the other when you’re so far ahead that you’ve disappeared from view by your own efforts.

“Unfortunately, this was a deliberate decision by the Framers, who rejected an altogether sensible proposal to make “maladministration” an impeachable offense for fear that this would give Congress too much power.”

There’s an old saying, “Everything is sensible in law and language. All you gotta do is talk long enough to convince the insensible of that.”

A future generation of Americans, living under a far more damaging regime than this one, will look back at us and wonder why we didn’t stop these people with the means that we had at our disposal. They’ll wonder because some future president, seeing that we did nothing today, will be emboldend to go even further in damaging our constitutionally limited republic in pursuit of absolute power.

…who cares? [McGovern is] neither a constitutional scholar, an influential leader, or even much of a politician.

Our constitution was not written for the “scholars,” the “influential leaders,” or the “politicians” — or the lawyers. It was written by the people and for the people. And when the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the people are subverted by our leaders, it is the peoples’ responsibility to remove them from power. The founders knew this all too well and gave us the tools and methods to do exactly that. We fail them by not acting in the same way that we fail future generations.

If there is only a year left in the president’s term, all the more reason to act now. In fact, if a newly elected Congress convened in the first week of January 2009 and impeached and convicted Bush and Cheney before the next president was sworn in, that would be OK with me too. Better late than never.

If we do nothing, we are squandering our freedom and cheating our children — and their children too.

Ara, purple prose notwithstanding, disagreeing with a President’s policy choices and regretting having given him the legal authority to act as he had is not the basis for impeachment. If this Congress — this Democratic Congress — took one, single vote that actually substantively changed policy… if it had the nerve to do so on either Iraq, or Guantanamo, or “torture,” or the “curtailment of civil liberties” … that would actually change history, and you could then tell your grandchildren what you did in the War.

They have done nothing as a deliberative, legislative body to reverse a single meaningful policy of this Administration. Instead they choose political masturbation. Who better, then, then the Onan of presidential election history, to speak for them?

It might just be that the biggest and most damaging scandal of the Bush administration is that Bush and Cheney are still in office and have not been impeached by the House and convicted by the US Senate.